Towards a sustainable energy balance: progressive efficiency and the return of energy conservation

Abstract

We argue that a primary focus on energy efficiency may not be sufficient to slow (and ultimately reverse) the growth in total energy consumption and carbon emissions. Instead, policy makers need to return to an earlier emphasis on "conservation," with energy efficiency seen as a means rather than an end in itself. We briefly review the concept of "intensive" versus "extensive" variables (i.e., energy efficiency versus energy consumption), and why attention to both consumption and efficiency is essential for effective policy in a carbon-and oil-constrained world with increasingly brittle energy markets. To start, energy indicators and policy evaluation metrics need to reflect energy consumption as well as efficiency.We introduce the concept of "progressive efficiency," with the expected or required level of efficiency varying as a function of house size, appliance capacity, or more generally, the scale of energy services. We propose introducing progressive efficiency criteria first in consumer information programs (including appliance labeling categories) and then in voluntary rating and recognition programs such as ENERGY STAR. As acceptance grows, the concept could be extended to utility rebates, tax incentives, and ultimately to mandatory codes and standards.For these and other programs, incorporating criteria for consumption as well as efficiency offers a path for energy experts, policy-makers, and the public to begin building consensus on energy policies that recognize the limits of resources and global carrying-capacity. Ultimately, it is both necessary and, we believe, possible to manage energy consumption, not just efficiency in order to achieve a sustainable energy balance. Along the way, we may find it possible to shift expectations away from perpetual growth and toward satisfaction with sufficiency.

The Role of Occupant Behavior in Achieving Net Zero Energy: A Demonstration Project at Fort Carson

“…The importance of focusing on behavioral and organizational factors is further emphasized by results showing that energy usage continues to rise over time, beyond the level simply accounted for by population increase (Shui et al 2010). Technical efficiency alone may slow the rate of energy use, but by itself is insufficient to achieve performance goals associated with aggressive energy and carbon reduction policies such as net-zero energy (Harris et al 2008). …”

Energy, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: Five Propositions

“…The objective should be to channel the benefits of improved efficiency into low carbon energy supply and improved quality of life rather than further growth and increased consumption. Options include green fiscal reform [120], progressive efficiency standards [121], caps on emissions and resource use, support for low carbon technologies, measures to encourage flexible working arrangements and reduced working hours, redistribution of income and so on. But such measures are likely to fail if the structural factors that make economies dependent upon continued economic growth remain unaddressed.…”

Beyond Technology: Demand-Side Solutions for Climate Change Mitigation

“…Other examples are water heating savings of 50% (e.g., by shorter showers or switching from baths to showers); cooking energy savings of 50% (e.g., by using different cooking practices); lighting energy savings of 70% (e.g., by turning off unneeded lights); refrigerator energy savings of 30-50% (e.g., by smaller refrigerator and freezer volumes and elimination of a second refrigerator); dishwasher energy savings of 75% (e.g., by operation at full load versus typical partial load); and clothes washer energy savings of 60-85% (e.g., by cold-versus hot-water washing) (84). Policies to target such behavioral change include progressive appliance standards and building codes, for example, with absolute consumption limits (kilowatt-hours per person per year) rather than efficiency requirements (kilowatt-hours per square meter per year) (85).…”