In 1865 an economist called Stanley Jevons put forward what seemed to him an obvious and quite simple assertion and critique of the wonders of steam engines and the emerging industrial revolution. Jevons argued that as costs of production fall, profits rise, prices fall and sales increase. Therefore he suggested that energy inputs in total (not per unit of production) will rise. This can be applied to an individual (direct) or an economy as a whole (indirect). It can also be used to critique the idea that ‘green consumerism’ is going to solve climate change. So for example if you buy a Prius, you will spend less on fuel, you will have more spare money in your pocket and will book another holiday abroad thus emitting as much or maybe more carbon. This became known as the Jevons Paradox.
More recently the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate has said that in fact much of our green ‘efficiency’ policy is ineffective or even counter-productive. The problem is that economists, politicians and policy-makers are mostly rebound-blind, assuming it out of their calculations (its too inconvenient). There is an assumption made by these economists and politicians that as consumers reach ‘saturation’ of energy use etc they will stop spending the spare cash in their pockets. How likely is that? And with billions around the world very poor and only 1 billion having the luxury to feel the onset of ‘affluenza’, how soon should we expect this spending to stop? In time to avert climate chaos?
Clearly efficiency is good. Its great for cutting production costs, for higher profits, for wealth and economic growth, for getting the most utility out of a given amount of energy and for heightening political acceptance for caps and high taxes. But as rebound approaches 100%, it becomes less environmentally effective, and rationing or taxes are better policy. Evidence of the lack of ‘decoupling’ of absolute carbon emissions and energy use from economic growth is now mounting. It is becoming more and more impossible for economists and policy-makers to ignore the reality. And more and more clear that politicaly leadership on taxes and absolute caps can be the only solution.
Now a study by the Cambridge Centre for Climate Mitigation Research has shown that the climate change policy recommended by many Governments could lead to between 30% and 52% rebound. That means over 50% of any efficiency will simply be offset by more usage elsewhere. So the much-vaunted Green New Deal economy-stimulus packages will be far less effective at reducing emissions than suggested by some. They rely greatly on energy-efficiency but take no account of the likely effect of rebound in their carbon reduction calculations. And if the rebound effect in developed countries is upwards of 50% then in developing countries it will be far higher, where relatively small improvements in disposable income can lead to big changes in consumption.
And its not just economists and politicians who need to tune in to reboundology. How about Tesco ‘turn lights into flights’ campaign offering free airmiles when you purchase energy-efficient lightbulbs! What this reinforces for me is that fact that technofix alone cannot get anywhere near solving things like climate change. We need audacious leadership from politicians on strong tax and rationing to create absolute reductions. And we need to tap into the wealth of abundant energy within ourselves and seek new ways to find flourishing and psycho-spiritual kicks. In short we need to shift from being and thinking of ourselves as consumers to citizens.
Ben Okri has said pointed to this need for a change in ourselves not our technology by saying that our “only hope lies in a fundamental re-examination of the values that we have lived by in the past 30 years”. And Vaclav Havel has echoed this saying “It is my deep conviction that the only option is a change in the sphere of the spirit, in the sphere of human conscience. It’s not enough to invent new machines, new regulations, new institutions. We must develop a new understanding of the true purpose of our existence on this Earth. Only by making such a fundamental shift will we be able to create new models of behaviour and a new set of values for the planet”.
