Restore: An R of sustainability that can tame the “Conundrum”
Vol 3, Issue 2, 2018, Article identifier:
VIEWS - 2710 (Abstract) 279 (PDF)
Abstract
The environmental benefits of sustainability efforts can be rendered less effective due to economic feedback mechanisms. As a remedy against such rebound effects, a reinvestment strategy towards environmental causes has been suggested. Here, a practical implementation of such a reinvestment strategy is presented. It involves a) estimating the financial savings resulting from sustainability efforts, b) informing the participants that the environmental benefit of the efforts is reduced by economic feedback mechanisms and c) asking them to donate a fraction of the expected savings towards environmental causes. An easy-to-use methodology for estimating rebound effects of sustainability efforts is presented in order to quantify the efficacy of this approach. CO2 emission offsets are used as an example of donations towards environmental causes. It is shown, that donating even a small amount (less than 1% of financial savings obtained from conservation or engineering savings) of donated carbon offsets can more than eliminate the estimated rebound effects. This then leads to the restore principle, that states that the environmental benefit of reducing activities with average environmental impact is dramatically improved if a fraction of the resulting financial savings is applied towards environmental causes. This approach is made practical by augmenting the common reduce, reuse, recycle motto with a fourth component: reduce, reuse, recycle and restore.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
1. Ryan L. and Campbell N. Spreading the net: The multiple benefits of energy efficiency improvements. OECD Publishing No. 2012/8, International Energy Agency 2012
2. Alcott B. The sufficiency strategy: Would rich-world frugality lower environmental impact? Ecological Economics 2008; 64(4): 770–786
3. Herring H. and Roy R.. Sustainable services, electronic education and the rebound effect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 2002; 22(5): 525–542
4. Hertwich E.G.. Consumption and the Rebound Effect: An Industrial Ecology Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2005; 9(1-2): 85–98
5. Takase K., Kondo Y., and Washizu A. . An Analysis of Sustainable Consumption by the Waste Input-Output Model. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2005; 9(1-2): 201–219
6. Owen D. . The Conundrum. Riverhead Trade 2012
7. F¨olster S. andNystr¨om J.. Climate policy to defeat the green paradox Ambio 2010; 39(3): 223–235
8. Alcott B.. Jevons’ paradox. Ecological Economics 2005; 54: 9–21
9. Jevons W.S.. The Coal Question. An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines. Macmillan and Co., 1865
10. Brookes L. . Energy policy, the energy price fallacy and the role of nuclear energy in the UK. Energy Policy, 6(2):94–106, 1978
11. Brookes L. . Energy efficiency fallacies revisited. Energy Policy 2000; 28(6-7): 355–366
12. Chitnis M. , Sorrell S. , Druckman A. et al. Turning lights into flights: Estimating direct and indirect rebound effects for UK households. Energy Policy 2013;55: 234–250
13. Dimitropoulos J. . Energy productivity improvements and the rebound effect: An overview of the state of knowledge. Energy Policy 2007; 35(12): 6354–6363
14. Gillingham K., Kotchen M.J. , Rapson D.S., et al. Energy policy: The rebound effect is overplayed. Nature 2013; 493(7433): 475–476
15. Greening L.A., Greene D.L. and Difiglio C.. Energy efficiency and consumption - the rebound effect - a survey. Energy Policy 2000; 28(6-7): 389–401
16. Jenkins T. , Nordhaus T. and Shellenberger M. . Energy Emergence: Rebound & Backfire as Emergent Phenomena. Technical report, The Breakthrough Institute 2011
17. Khazzoom J.D. . Economic Implications of Mandated Efficiency in Standards for Household Appliances. The Energy Journal1980 ;1(4): 21–40
18. Saunders H.D. . Historical Evidence for Energy Consumption Rebound in 30 US Sectors and a Toolkit for Rebound Analysts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, page (in press), 2013.
19. Schipper L. and Grubb M.J.. On the rebound? Feedback between energy intensities and energy uses in IEA countries. Energy Policy 2000; 28(6-7): 367–388
20. Sorrell S and Dimitropoulos J . The rebound effect: Microeconomic definitions, limitations and extensions. Ecological Economics 2008; 65(3): 636–649
21. Murray CK . What if consumers decided to all ‘go green’? Environmental rebound effects from consumption decisions. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. (MPRA paper no. 40405) 2012
22. Wackernagel M. and Rees M. Perceptual and structural barriers to investing in natural capital: economics from an ecological footprint
23. perspective. Ecological Economics 1997; 20(3): 3– 24
24. Waggoner PE and Ausubel JH . A renovated framework for sustainability science: A renovated IPAT identity. PNAS 2002; 99(12): 7860–7865
25. Hansen J. Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity. Bloomsbury
26. USA, 2009.
27. Hansen J, Sato M, Kharecha P , et al. Climate change and trace gases. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2007; 365: 1925–1954
28. Maynard L and Mupandawana M. Tipping behavior in Canadian restaurants International Journal of Hospitality Management2009; 28(4): 597–603
29. Electric Power Monthly. Technical Report DOE/EIA-0226 (2012/05). Energy Information Administration 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18063/esp.v3.i2.619
(2710 Abstract Views, 279 PDF Downloads)
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Eckart Bindewald
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.